"This is our playoffs"

I've heard this phrase many a time.  Athletes on a losing team refer to some upcoming game as "their superbowl" or "their playoffs".  Just off the top of my head I can remember Ray Lewis talking about the Patriots when the Patriots were undefeated; he said that his team was not making the playoffs and that this game (which was on MNF) was their Superbowl.  They were crushed when they lost on a controversial referee call.  

I heard Raja Bell refer to their upcoming game against the Lakers as it being a playoff game for them.  And I heard Gilbert Arenas refer to their game against Cleveland this year as their playoff game.  It happens a few times a year, when a team with a losing record plays a rival or big-time team that they match up well against and they play as hard as they can.  They really believe they can win.  

And they usually do.  And if not, they at least cover the spread. In the NBA especially, certain teams just match up well against superior teams.  Not every team, obviously, but against that one special team they match up well.  Like the Warriors and Mavericks in the 2007 playoffs.  

But this is usually a rare occurance and I don't think it is ever reflected in the spread for games.  Nevertheless, this is a major factor in the outcome of the game. It is a gametype I need to look out for.  Its not necessarily a cognitive bias but it is definitely a game type.  

I call it "the playoff".  

The Cavs were 12 point road favorites to the Wizards.  The Wizards arena was sold-out.  Considering they have less than twenty wins this season, that is indicative of how much it was rocking.  Also, when the Lakers visited Charlotte this year, the stadium had its largest crowd....ever.

Conference Championships

Looking at your post about the luckiest teams (and actual games where the Eagles lost at the end of games) its surprising to think that a 12.1 win team (Eagles) would be road underdogs to a 8.2 win team especially win the 8.2 win team is from the NFC West. Concerning the Ravens/Steelers, we saw the Giants lose to Dallas twice in the regular season before finally solving the riddle at Dallas in the playoffs. The Ravens were so close both times and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they won. They have Superbowl experience, great leadership (Ray Lewis), and a good defense. That is a recipe for victory.

Lastly, if you look at how the Cardinals won, it was by intercepting the QB five times. But they only had 13 in the entire regular season. They average less than one per game. So perhaps they defense is playing really well. But its more likely that Carolina's offense was just really bad.

The toughest things to figure out are absolute measures of a team. I think I would have to have a great understanding of a team and watch the game three times at a minimum to figure out how good a team is. If the Cardinals defense is say, a 60 on a 100 point scale, but Carolina and Delhomme play at a 20 level, the Cards will really do well . But if Carolina plays at a 60 but the Cards at a 40, it will look worse for the Cards.

So the two concepts are the *normal skill* or average, median, mean, typical, or baseline, performance level of an a team unit. Then there are certain factors applied to it, for motivation, correct game planning, fatigue, familiarity between teams and players, etc. These factors can boost or reduce a teams number.

As an analyst one has to figure out the baseline level and then the true level. And these concepts can be difficult to discern because there is no easy way to measure them. A defense can only be graded relative to the offense it is playing against, which also has a myriad of its own factors. No home-boosted offense plays a home-boosted defense.

These are the problems I have to solve. The first is just watching a game several times. I've never watched a game more th an once. What if I watched it five times? What if I watched every game that a football team played all season five times?

Then I would have a tremendous understanding of that one team.